It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
^ Back to Top
The MI6 Community is unofficial and in no way associated or linked with EON Productions, MGM, Sony Pictures, Activision or Ian Fleming Publications. Any views expressed on this website are of the individual members and do not necessarily reflect those of the Community owners. Any video or images displayed in topics on MI6 Community are embedded by users from third party sites and as such MI6 Community and its owners take no responsibility for this material.
James Bond News • James Bond Articles • James Bond Magazine
Comments
The film I think robs Vesper of her decision: instead of deciding to kill herself, she just decides not to be saved.
Probably after thinking about how to heavily adapt it (CR certainly adds a lot to the point its first half has nothing to do with the novel, and honestly it's needed).
I don't think that takes away Vesper's agency at all. She locks herself in that elevator knowing her death is her way out. It's her choice to do that as everything is literally falling around her (metaphorically and literally!) The powerful thing is we see her making that choice onscreen as well.
The issue with that idea is it would still be an anti-climax. The great thing about the sinking house is it's a relatively large scale set piece - quite unique and even outlandish. Bondian. But it also integrates the emotion of Vesper's betrayal and the audience get that sense even in the action (again, unless one has hang ups about how much they prefer the book).
As I said, if they'd gotten that last act wrong, it may well have been detrimental to the film's reception. They made the right choice.
If I was fully convinced Tarantino has read the book it may work (although I'm not sure in practice Tarantino is very suited to Bond, and his hypothetical CR would likely have been radically different to what we know a Bond film to be, even with the CR we got).
In regards to the first point - Casino was successful, so they doubled down. I think it's probably that simple.
Otherwise, like I said, my issue is not only does it seem unnecessary to me (TLD and GE don't need to take place at the start of Bonds career, and those stories work fine as they are) and feels like its only there because the mid 2000's were full of Angst culturally, but certain aspects cross the line and don't ring true to the character anymore. Flemings Bond is way more rough and ready than he's often portrayed on screen but I don't think he would throw his body around with abandon without at least considering his options. The Bond in the books is way less sure of himself, more doubting, constantly cursing himself. Here he works almost like a robot that's already calculated the next action before its taken. When he invades the embassy that feels way more like videogame Bond than book Bond to me. And don't get me wrong I don't hate the film by any means, it's very flemingesque when it comes to the seduction of Solange, the card game, the whole relationship, the torture scene is chiefs kiss. I just think, and especially more as the years go by, that certain aspects can feel dated and of their time.
My answer would be that 1. Vesper is supposedly working with the treasury so even though he's professional there's probably a slight difference in trust, and 2. He's getting old and soft-hearted, and is yet to recognise it. Essentially it's the same story, just told with someone climbing down the rungs of the ladder instead of ascending them.
Ok... even if that were so it's still very much a part of his character in later films, and I really don't get the sense in CR he fundamentally changes in the way you're implying. His big character moment in the film is deciding to leave to start a new life with Vesper. Like the novel her death ultimately brings him back and strengthens his sense of duty.
Ok... I still don't understand what the issue is or why showing Bond earlier in his career is inherently a bad choice, especially considering they didn't make Bond a newbie but a pretty competent, ruthless operative (so ultimately more in line with what we'd expect from Bond).
Ultimately, what I suppose I can understand (strip away all the mid 2000s angst stuff as it's not adding anything and simply getting to the point here) is you don't think that more ruthless, loose cannon version of Bond is in line with what came before it or with Fleming. Fair enough. I would disagree that it has no precedent in the films for the reason I said before, and ultimately if we're talking about the choices taken when adapting Fleming's Bond, I can understand Bond's film counterpart might be a bit different in certain places. I'd say the same about any of the other Bonds.
That's only because we get to read his internal monologue. And even in CR during the chase we see Bond considering what he's going to do - ie. during the Madagascar chase he looks around, spots the bulldozer, and hijacks it, getting the upper hand. There are other moments where we see him considering what to do as well, so I don't quite agree with what you're saying.
I think you can make the criticism in general that Bond is much more slick and indestructible in the films compared to the novels, and the action is more 'videogame'-like, especially in later films. Again, fair enough. They're films and rely a lot on visual spectacle. Compared to books they'll often be that sheen of fantasy.
I will say I remember when CR came out how unusual it was seeing Bond get hurt. Obviously he'd bled or been beaten in the films before, but actually seeing Bond clean himself up after a brutal fight, down whiskey, getting tortured and seeing him in hospital afterwards was quite new. More so than other Bond films - including some after - we actually got a sense of what Bond had to go through. That's something I think CR has going for it.
I don't get the sense it's a dated film, certainly not in the grand scheme of Bond films! I think people still generally enjoy it today. But fair enough if you have issues with it. I don't disagree with all of them, but I can understand why these decisions were made.
Yeah, it would have been a Tarantino movie. The thing is, the book is Tarantin-esque.
I found no such atmosphere in the book. Just really flat. The film was good but the third act is excessive, and Bond's vaunted romance tacked on to sell the brand.
Book was the same. Bond falls for Vesper to sell the 'I'll die fighting communism' routine.
Falling building was shite.
Thank christ they didn't do QT
Who says Camille is the first and only Bond Girl not to have sex with Bond?
And it's been a long time since I've watched Thunderball, but I don't remember Bond having sex with Domino either (due to Largo's threat), so we could count the Bond Girls who didn't have any sex with Bond as Three (Domino, Kara, and Camille), maybe I need to rewatch TB to clarify this one.
Although it's accurate to say that Camille is the only Bond Girl not to ended up with Bond in the end, but to say that she's the first and the only Bond Girl not to have sex with Bond, is not accurate, right?
Can some of you share your own opinions on this?
I think what they probably mean is that they part ways without ever having sex. It's heavily implied that Kara and Bond are ready to get busy at the end of TLD, having not yet had the appropriate opportunity.
He had underwater sex with Domino.
Regarding Dalton, we don't know what happened on the Ferris wheel.
And once there, they have their lover's spat, then we cut away from them when their kissing becomes a little more passionate. I certainly think this is a moment where they show they're about to be intimate again.
I never thought Bond waited until the end to be with Kara.
They did it in the ferris wheel car, didn't they?
Kara really lurved Koskov, schmoodling his mates whilst she thinks Koskov's in danger.
This thread intrigues me because it highlights what is wrong with the 'Bond needs to get his end away' sequences which mar the originals.
Recent films may be more heavy-handed in displaying The Message, but they're right to.
By the time Bond accepts Kara making him a martini, tells me that they were lovers by this point (hence why his guard is down, much to his detriment).
I agree with @peter
I don't even believe Bond intended to go that far with her! She wasn't just one of his notch on the bedpost types, like the girl on the boat in the pts.
The "do you want another ride" guy makes me think they probably were intimate. Bond's demeanor radically shifts after Saunders is assassinated - instantly colder and more focused - especially to Kara who bears the brunt of it - so I'm not sure I buy much romance happening between the Ferris Wheel and Martini scene. That said, I love that this is left open to interpretation so you can project your own thoughts on what may or may not have happened
In QoS, there is no such implied after. Bond and Camille say definitive goodbyes and the film end with them miles apart, with no gap for them to have actually done anything